The Human Rights Commission's (HRC) Disability Commissioner, Paul Gibson, replied to me today regarding Immigration NZ (INZ) and its discriminatory stance against migrants with unique function/disability/access needs. He said the HRC is concerned about the stories it is hearing and is aware that the actions of INZ contravene United Nations' principles. (Refer to my previous posts here and here.)

In the HRC's monitoring of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which it does as part of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism (IMM) along with the Ombudsman and the Convention Coalition of Disabled People’s Organisations, he said, "we haven't given much attention to date to article 18 on freedom of movement and nationality, which specifically mentions immigration. We will be mentioning it to our IMM partners when we meet next week, and to the Office of Disability issues and Minister of Disability Issues in upcoming meetings."

Last Sunday I emailed Paul Gibson, Disability Commissioner at the Human Rights Commission about two recent cases of disability-related discrimination by Immigration New Zealand. I've had no reply so I thought I'd make it an open letter. Please feel free to use this as a template to also email Paul — paulg@hrc.co.nz

I am concerned by the ethical argument brewing between the parents of Charley Hooper — who have finished a series of surgeries and hormone therapy to contain her growth and development — and disability/human rights advocates like Disability Rights Commisioner Paul Gibson — who has said the procedure was "unnecessary" and "inconsistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)."

The Hoopers say they have "no regrets" about stopping the growth of their daughter — who "has less control over her body than a newborn, with no head control and no purposeful movement of any limbs. She is blind and does not recognise anyone, including her parents." The procedure has also stopped Charley from having 200 seizures per day and has resulted in her smiling for the first time.

Gibson is calling for a law change to protect the rights of disabled children as a result of the Hooper situation. But whose call is it to define the "rights" and "protection" of children in circumstances such as this?

Unfortunately I was unable unable to attend tonight's 25th reunion of RainbowYOUTH, "a charitable organisation providing support, information, advocacy and education for queer and trans* young people (aged between 13 and 28), their friends and Whānau, and those who work with queer and trans* youth."

Having had the honour of being their patron for the last few years I asked for a few words to be read on my behalf.

Kia ora koutou. Happy 25th birthday RainbowYOUTH. My apologies for not being able to be here in person to address you this evening.

Australian swimmer Ian Thorpe is the latest in a long line of sports "stars" to come out as gay in an interview with celebrity interviewer Sir Michael Parkinson. It seems to be a sport in itself these days: to play professional sport and reveal that you're gay.

Or perhaps a better sport might be to place bets on who will be next. David Beckham? Too good to be true.

But the real question — or the bigger conversation we're not having — is about the "casual homophobia", as Kath and Kim actor and out lesbian comedian Magda Szubanski puts it, in sport that stops people like Thorpe coming out — or never having to "go in" in the first place.

My attention was drawn this morning to this TVNZ Sunday segment about Charley, the girl with significant brain damage due to medical misadventure at birth. Her parents opted for the "Ashley Treatment", hormone therapy that will keep her small and infertile for her whole life.

The parents' decision has had human rights advocates, ethics comittees and open-minded medical professionals at loggerheads. Does the treatment breach her human rights or will it allow her to be cared for by her parents and avoid a family history of heavy menstral bleeding and pain?

I can see both sides. I think it's the sort of issue that gets polarised. As Charley's mum said, it shouldn't be easy to do and I think the scrutiny is important to ensure people's rights aren't run roughshod over. While I share some of the concerns relating to human rights and ethics (many have fought long and hard to secure them), I don't think for one minute these parents should be demonised for wanting to protect their daughter from discomfort and possible institutionalised care as she grows.

Twice in the last week I've been confronted by the issue of asking employment applicants whether they have any health or disability-related needs or requirements. First at a Human Resources Institute diversity event; and then on the application form for a part-time position I have applied for.

The practice seems quite prevalent among employers, who seem unaware that it is a potential breach of human rights. Based on the four years I spent working for the Human Rights Commission, let me explain the problems, risks and solutions.